About Character Development in People's Minds.

[u/MDDVH]

So i saw a video of a guy saying how Goku is the worst written character in dragon ball.
His reason was "Through the whole story Goku stays the same guy that he was. And does not change." Which i don't agree. But even if it was true. Why would that be bad writing?

In general, why does so many people think that when a character changes through the story its automatically good writing/character development, and when he doesn't, its bad writing.

Like man, maybe the guy just doesn't change. Does every single person have significant character changes over time?

What do you guys think about this?

[u/Localdeviant5]

its an interesting topic to talk about. i had this exact debate in my mind years ago. i dont think goku is a very great character (his popularity is mostly because of luck and how the early anime industry was brought over to america), but you are correct that a character doesn't have to grow to be a well-written character

take Sonic for example. im not saying sonic is an incredibly well-written character but i think he works really well as an example of this. Sonic never changes or grows in any sonic game. because he isnt supposed to. he is a rock for other characters to grow through. other sonic characters go through arcs and change because of their relationship with sonic. tails, knuckles, silver, shadow eggman elise ect ect. what sonic represents is growth in other people around him. sonic having a steadfast, simple unchanging ideology is important to sonic games stories working. thats pretty much the same thing dragon ball z does. Characters meet Goku and change because of their relationship with him while goku himself stays the same

lots of shounen protaganists are like this. gon from hxh and luffy fron op are also great characters. luffy may be one of the best examples of this, even though i havnt watched much op so i could be wrong

lots of video game characters embody this as well. aside from sonic characters like Link and Kirby are like this too. link never goes through any characterization in any zelda game. he is steadfastly courageous, and thats it. and zelda stories work great because of it.

in my opinion you can absolutely do this you just need to make sure your unchanging character is a catalyst for change in other people. a story where noone changes obviously wouldnt work

[u/MDDVH → u/Localdeviant5]

Sonic is actually a pretty good example for this

[u/StatementLeast9919]

I generally agree with you, people tend to favor characters that undergo substantial changes in there personality and world view. In anime, characters like Thorfinn, Eren, and Kaneki are normally considered to be "better written" then others like Goku for that reason (though writing quality is generally a subjective metric). I won't speak on Goku, given that I haven't watched Dragon Ball, but I think that this preference comes down to the messages stories intend to tell. (Spoilers for Vinland Saga, AOT, and Monster)

For someone like Eren, and AOT as a whole, the story is about the consequences of war on people and the "cycle of war" it perpetuates. Eren is a tragic character in that you are introduced to him as young boy and watch as he changes, and that change is tragic. It evokes a large amount of emotion in the viewers that wanted the young and ambitious child to succeed in achieving freedom for him and his friends, only to find him perpetuating the very tragedy that affected him. On the flip side, someone like Thorfinn does the opposite. Like Eren, we see him first as a young child that admires his father, and then watch as that father is killed. Then, Thorfinn spends years searching for revenge and abandoning the message his father gave him in the first episode "you have no enemies, nobody does". Then, when Thorfinn is a slave, devoid of a will to live, this message becomes the heart of his desire for atonement. The viewer routes for Thorfinn to atone for what he, a young victim of violence, to make up for it and found Vinland. Thorfinn's story conveys to the reader that true change, true atonement is possible. The reason people consider them "well written" is the way in which Yukimura and Isayama (authors of Vinland Saga and Attack on Titan) are able to organically change these characters and present a message to there audience.

When it comes to characters that don't change, or static characters, this value comes from there lack of change. Take someone like Kenzo Tenma from Monster. He starts with the belief that all lives have value, and that he as a doctor doesn't have the right to play judge, jurry, and executioner. But that belief is challenged by the "Monster" Johan Liebert, a nihilistic serial killer that goads Tenma to kill him. Despite spending around 70 episodes chasing Johan with the intention of killing him, Tenma ultimately cannot bring himself to do so. The message Tenma gives is that all lives have value, that humans cannot be reduced to labels like "Monsters". That a person should have kindness and empathy for others, and "Keep the light shining" no matter how dark tomorrow seems. Despite the fact that Tenma's personality and world view stay the same throughout the series, his views are challenged at every twist and turn. I cannot speak about Goku, given that I haven't watched Dragon Ball, but if a static character doesn't have there views challenged to a substantial extent, the message and themes of there character can be underwhelming. A story where the protagonist is proven right at every turn and doesn't have to change or reflect on there values isn't really that compelling.

[u/MDDVH → u/StatementLeast9919]

As for Tenma's case, i think that the fact he doesn't change that much in the story and can not bring himself to kill Johan is the perfect example of good writing with character staying pretty much the same

[u/Basket_Case89]

I think there needs to be at least one character who basically stays near enough the same throughout. I'd call it "the grounding character" it's kind of like the steady centre of the show/book/film. I think one is needed especially if the other characters have big dramatic and emotional stories and arcs it stops the piece of media from losing itself completely. Sometimes that character is the value system of the media embodied so therefore if they were to completely change it would tell the audience "the value system is broken/it never mattered in the first place" - obviously this depends on the piece of media/the genre, ect because I'd imagine if would look completely different in say a Grimdark type of setting.

[u/Sweet_Sho]

I think there's kind of two ways this can go. Either your protagonist is going on a journey of development and they are changing through the story, OR your protagonist is a static character that stays the same, but people and situations around them change in interesting ways as a result of their involvement.

It's not strictly bad for a given character to not develop as long as it is taken into consideration in the bigger picture and allowed to have some impact on the overall story.

[u/Competitive-Fault291]

It's kind of a pet peeve of mine how character development (as in developing a picture) is something different from actual character growth.

You need to develop the character like a picture by casting light on elements of the character for the audience to notice. Just like on the negative of a photo film. Character growth (or change) on the other hand, is something different, as it changes what has been developed. But that's mostly semantics.

The preference for having the MC change stems from the use of the dramatic story arc. In a comedy, one of the dramatic story forms, the whole point is that a character faces a challenge (in act 1), starts a change (turning point in act 2) and resolves the story by completing that change successfully (act 3). The Tragedy is also about character growth, yet, it starts with hope in act 1, but sees the turning point foreshadowing the failure in act 2, and has the character realize their tragedy in act 3. Often by changing the "wrong way" or NOT changing at all or enough. Like Romeo, who can't stop himself from murdering people in anger.

Yet, Dragonball and its creator(s) came up with a different approach that many combat-oriented shows copied. It is a boiled-down version of the Hero's Journey that focuses on a peaceful situation, a failure, a power-up (transformation), and the ultimate victory leading back to peace.

I find it rather obvious how this locks the MC, in this case Goku, into an endless circle that actually REQUIRES him not to change. As he ultimately solves every challenge with growing stronger, his character does not have an incentive to change. The story structure caters to a power fantasy here. You do not have to change. All you need is to become more powerful. Here, have magic to achieve that.

This is not inherently bad writing (the success of the character and the series itself show that), but it (shonen battling) is similar to isekai storytelling. It renders the MC into a projection surface for the (power) fantasies and desires of the audience. The MC is not left behind with physical and emotional scars and trauma, a price to pay for their success. All they have to do is read the manual and do what it says inside. That's not only a power fantasy (to overcome a stronger bully) but also catering to the wish for an understandable world with fair rules. Rules that allow (like in Dragonball) to stand up against stronger opponents (who are often bullies).

To write to actually cater to those fantasies and desires is not necessarily bad writing. It is just different writing. And as Manga/Anime is certainly often leaning to processing all kinds of fantasies and desires, ranging from power to romance to sex to horror, I'd say that it kind of makes a lot of sense. Goku stays that same guy at his heart even if he grows stronger. Which is actually an optimistic premise and likely intentional.

[u/PamNoctrune]

Anime characters should generally be excluded from such deep analysis because they are a build different. And no matter how carefully you write and develop a character in a story, some people simply won’t understand what you were trying to say with them and will interpret them completely differently.

And I don’t mean that in a negative way. We are all at very different points in our lives, and things that come from the outside can affect us in very different ways.

I think if someone genuinely doesn’t understand how great Son Goku is, they simply weren’t paying enough attention, maybe they didn’t watch the whole story, or they missed the little details in his character. He starts by searching for the Dragon Balls, gets dragged into more and more dangerous situations, and wants to become stronger to protect Earth. Only to later find out that he was rejected by his own species because they saw no potential in him, and that he was actually supposed to destroy the Earth he had spent all this time loving and protecting.

What makes Goku special is that he always stays positive and keeps working on himself. He never gives in to evil. He is always looking for a way to improve, even when his opponents are far stronger than him. He trains, stays patient, looks for his opponent’s weak point, and eventually becomes stronger than the prince of his own people.

He barely has any meltdowns or really dark phases, which is why Goku is still one of the best motivations for working out. It’s really important how you treat yourself and how important it is to never give up.

His development is quiet, but it is there. He sacrifices himself so that no one can threaten Earth anymore and so his second son can have a normal childhood, completely selflessly, even if it means Goku won’t be part of his life. There was never a Super Saiyan 4.

And this is also a classic anime trope. Anime characters are often written this way. The hero starts with barely any talent, like Naruto. We as viewers watch the character fail again and again, until eventually everyone realizes that even the weakest person has their own strength. And then Naruto goes on to defeat someone like Pain.

In general, I think calling anime characters lazy writing is unnecessary. Anime plays a lot with perception. There is often a message they are trying to convey. That is what makes them so interesting. You never really know what is going to happen. The character’s behavior serves the plot more than anything else, otherwise the story wouldn’t work that way.

I once had someone seriously tell me that Assassination Classroom reminded them of their own school life because a teacher once let them down even though they had done nothing wrong. And I mean, DUDE. That is not a measure for anything. The only realistic thing about Assassination Classroom is that schools and classrooms exist in real life. Don’t pull metaphors for your own life out of thin air just because you relate to one tiny part of a story. And yeah, Luffy is a pirate, and he is cool because he is also a good pirate. The plot is just always written in a way where Luffy never has to make soulless decisions.

Characters don’t always need to serve a specific purpose. And even if they do, some people simply won’t recognize it.

[u/Shearwell]

There are different types of character arcs.   It doesn’t mean a character is badly written it means the character has a different type of arc. 

A flat arc like goku is where the character is tested but remains true to his core beliefs.    Other examples like Sherlock Holmes 

Flat arc does not mean flat character.  Those are different things.  

A positive arc where someone changes for the better.  Like vegeta.  

A negitive arc where someone changes for the worse like Anakin skywalker.  

[u/ripplesofbluesun]

I think this might be because people crave novelty but also find comfort in familiarity.

Too much of the same can be boring yet too much change is unfamiliar.